I was looking at the 'consequences' thread and this is one of a long line of an ongoing debate.

The thought occurs to me that TES would really benefit from having a definitive ending. Although the paradox is the fans would never allow it.

A lot of people moan (me included) about the lack of real choice and consequences in Bethesda games. In skyrim, you can kill or not kill someone, choose a side in the civil war, but nothing particularly dramatic happens in terms of gameplay or more importantly nothing that seriously changes the game. Ultimately, you're going to end up saving the world as a hero following a predetermined path. Sure you can do what you want when you want, but whatever you do, Skyrim will carry on basically the same as before.

The problem is, each consequence has to be incorporated into the game. The bigger the choice, the bigger the consequences, the more variablles. With a game this size, it would doubtless be an absolute nightmare to have multiple gameworld changes. The size of the game would probably be smaller and there'd be even more bugs.

If the game had a definitive ending with multiple possibles endings like NV though, it's a realistic proposition to have your choices build towards a climix whose outcome you determine. Like NV, this ending can reflect the consequences of decisions made along the way. It would have been great to have the option to help the Thalmor throughout the game with an outcome they covertly end up pulling all the strings in Skyrim and badly undermine the Empire. Even help Alduin if that's where you're at.

The problem is, Bethesda are wedded to eternal sandboxes - and the fans demand that. People went crazy just because in NV after one final battle you couldn't continue. All you had to do was defer that final battle until you wanted to end the game. And this allowed Obsidian to build multiple choices into the game, choices it would have been impossible to reflect in post MQ play without at least doubling the content to reflect the massive gameworld changes. You also had a choice not to go too far down one road until you were committed. It was your decision to upset the NCR enough to be branded a terrorist and potentially screw up a bunch of possible quests when you were ready to go down that path building towards the inevitable climix. You can't change anything because the gameworld always has to be there intact so you can go back and do all the quests you missed. Though why the Dragonborn is lowering themselves to fetch quests after saving the world is anyone's guess. Me, I'd go on holiday or something.

Personally I think it's a better experience if the game has a set point to choose to engage when you wish that ends the game and tells you what the results of your choices are in the long run. Were you hero or villain? Did you sort things out or screw them up? Did you improve things for some people at the expense of messing them up for others? That to me gives you the sense of impact and aids replayability because it encourages you to play the game again from a different perspective and see what happens if you do things another way. Deferring major outcomes to a set of possible endings means huge resources aren't needed to change the gameworld dynamically. And then it's up to Bethesda to decide what's canon.

I personally just think TES would be improved by doing the unthinkable and saying to the player once you go this far, you're committed to ending the game. But you have a choice as to what the ending will be. It's a moot point though because I can't see they'll ever do it. In which case, there's no point really moaning rtoo much about beingf railroaded to predetermined outcomes because that's the consequence of eternal sandboxes.

Thoughts?

If they finish TES, they better put out a zanex dlc...there will be mass nervous breakdowns on some forums.

mmmmm....NO

Is it me, or did I read somewhere that 'ole Beth is planning on rebooting the series soon?

I hope so.... it wouldn't hurt to start on a clean slate. As long as they don't erase everything we've come to know and love about the series.

You could always stop playng and end it for yourself.

I don't want them to end the series, but I don't want to just continue the story. I hope we have a thalmor-related DLC for Skyrim, and then start TES VI at the end of the fourth era. That time distance would be like a fresh start, but we'll still have all of that amazing lore.

Evolve & Improve or get Streamlined & Loose.

Of course you can.

What I'm trying to say is is you want the game to never have a definitive ending, there's no point moaning about the lack of meaningful choices with proper consequences because that's an inevitable consequence of the game being an eternal sandbox - it's just too complex to give the player proper choices and reflect them dynamically in the gameworld. Hence, you're always going to be railroaded down a path that doesn't really change anything. Like the civil war - the outcome of the civil war should have MAJOR repercussions on Skyrim and Tamriel as a whole. But it's too complicated for the gameworld to have anything other than a few NPCs changing place.

And I'm not rtalking about ending the series - which some people seem to think -I'm talking about TES games having definitive endings with multiple choices as to what that ending is like NV did oin order to facilitate your actions having real consequences you can see, if only because the game tells you what they are at the end.

TES neds end??? naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

EDIT: i understood you talk about a "game end" and not a "series end"

Bethesda seems to think that fun can only be everything that allows everything with no consequences. Consequences of your choices like in reality is `no fun` apparently, so there aren`t any.


One of the things I loved about the Witcher was it`s difficult choices and consequences; for instance I had to decide whther to allow a woman to be burned at the stake for crimes she may or may not have done. Let her off she excapes having done really bad things . She even tries to have six with you to change your mind which is even more suspicious.

Save her and you may have really released a wicked witch and you literally have to slaughter an entire enraged village. Have her executed and you feel like a bastard who allowed someone to be hounded to death.

CONSEQUENCES of your ACTIONS.

Often there are no easy answers. But apparently that`s `no fun`.

You can't compare the writing in NV with a TES game. It's just not fair.

First off NV was written by Obsidian (formerly Black Isle). Everyone knows they are the best RPG writers. BG, BG2, FO1, FO2, Planescape etc...

They stopped development on VanBuren in 2003. It was written more than six years prior to release. They had much more time than anyone else to develop a great story.

that's why i really loved The Witcher....and i love The Witcher 2.
i'm sorry to say that in beth forum, but fo what concerning a RPG section of the game, Witcher is way better than Skyrim...

Licensing the series to a third party seemed to me to indicate a lack of seriousness or pride in the series in the first place.

Bethesda didn't have to declare those books lore, but they did. I don't think Bethesda cares what happens in the Elder scrolls- of course there are people working there who do. They 'care' in the sense of their work pride- but I doubt Bethesda takes the Elder Scrolls any where near as seriously as the fans do. I don't mean they put something in a box, anything, and cynically sell it. But they make a product- like any company.

This is where you're wrong. What if they, for instance, gave you the option to rebuild Helgen? How would that alter the rest of the game? How would that impact any of the other games? What if you got the option to overthrow one of the Jarls and take his place? This needn't necessarily alter the end-state too much: the city still has a Jarl. Maybe you even get a few extra quests if you choose this route: you have to get the other Jarls to accept and like you, or otherwise you're just automatically inserted into one of the civil war quest forks.

The beauty about setting each TES game in a new region is that the little choices don't spill over much from one game to another.

There's absolutely no reason they can't implement more C&C. They just choose not to (or are crippled by marketing deadlines... ).

I would indeed agree. It took me a long time to get the Witcher because I had no idea how good it was. It is still underrated in my view.

That's beside the point, surely? Why does any of that mean Bethesda can't build really meaningful, gameworld changing choices into their games by making them end at some point the player chooses?
Stories do, after all, tend to have an ending at some point. The fact Bethesda games never have an ending is IMO a major reason why the story is ultimately so disatisfying. Like I haven't ended completed the MQ quest but I already know that whatever happens you won't stop dragons - because the player needs them for dragon souls and they might have done the MQ first and found hardly any word walls. So I already know it doesn't matter what happens in the MQ, it won't stop dragons attacking Skyrim. as I understand it, they just attack it more often as you apparently encounter them far more frequently.

I disagree.

In my opinion, people need to get over this obsession that TES needs to compete with all the story-driven RPGs out there. The game can have a lot of meaningful choices and consequences without even having a main storyline, let alone a main storyline that brings a definitive ending to the game.

Bethesda just need to make it so that things matter more. Everything from the race you choose, the skills you focus on, the factions you join, the people you kill, the dialogue choices you make when interacting with NPCs, etc. should have more meaningful consequences.

If I catch your meaning, you mean it to end like most linear games that have multiple endings that have the same credits rolling at the end that aside from Resident Evil 4, I never think to enjoy again because of that same credit rolling ending? I can't see that improving anything really. It was the ending styled games of action/levels/credits rolling that I tired of decades ago and drew me to Morrowind.

Can Skyrim get sedate after long hours of risking ones life or learning a skill? Most surely. The fact that credit rolling endings in games often get traded in when they are beaten, even by those that may love a series proves that. Better to leave them as they are, open, free, a bit stunted here and there, but fertile ground for modders to improve. In the case of those on consoles, like myself, perhaps the time has come to encourage a facet of their staff to make some serious downloads to keep up with the modders, or as in the case of Oblivion, it is time for the expansion sets to return. I know I would greatly buy an expansion set for Skyrim that dealt with the border war with between Hammerfell and the Aldmeri Dominion, or the next pick of the other lands that we have not encountered yet. Skyrim borders other lands. Even with dragons gone and civil wars put to bed, the land will always have its dangers. New dangers could be added. Come to think of it, this was done already with some of the quests that I thought were ended. I get attacked on the road by the followers, sycophants, or those in the employ of those that were vanquished in some ended quests. They just need to release the talents (or do some fisherman trolling amongst the modders here) and get ideas.

Sure. I don't disagree with that. But what I'm saying is, the more dramatic the choice, the more complexity required to reflect it. So side choices are easily done - and they should do more - but big consequences - you as the big hero/villain really making stuff happen - it'll always be seriously restricted in the present format.

I guess I just don't understand this whole thing where people are obsessed with it being totally unthinkable Bethesda games ever have a proper ending where stuff really changes for better or worse. IMO it doom their stories to always being a bit lame. Like in Fallout 3 - you got two choices - then they release broken steel and guess what - your epic adventure led to some water brahimin wandering about or some sick people in hospitals. The ending was lame as it was, and the fans demanded it be made even lamer.

Stop moaning about this stuff all the time, and stop mentioning other games, skyrim is skyrim, not wow, not nv, it's SKYRIM.

The idea is, the credits rolling tells you the consequences of multiple major decisions. Fundamentally, there would be no difference other than you make a choice as to when to initiate that ending. Once you choose to engage in the final battle or whatever, the games tells you the outcome of the choices you made in a depth it would be impossible to dynamically reflect in the gameworld. I'm think New Vegas because IMO the way they handled the whole issue of consequence/endings was far more satisfying. And when it ended - which you chose to make happen - you hadn't beaten the game - you'd seen one possible set of outcomes. So then you go back and do it a different way and see what happens if you do things differently.

What would be an altrernate ending to skyrim then? Don't kill Alduin and let him destroy the world? Or kill him a different way but you still kill him so it's the same as it is at the moment.

So is this thread #2 of the other thread?

You could say choices and consequences, and the story, could be more prevalent, more far reaching and deeper if they gave us a character instead of giving us free rein to be who we want. Imo, even more undesirable than an ending. Plenty of linear games with player character driven plots and choices with consequences; not too many completely free roam, no back story, do what the hell you like games, please don't mess with the few we have and make them like everything else.